Search This Blog

SLUT!

Food for thought, my slutty humans. God forbid that a woman take ownership of performing in porn to make ends meet. Porn isn't really my cup of tea, I confess, but the fuss-mess that kicks up when my sex tries to shame the 'slut' of the day is, well obviously horrible, but also rather creepy.

After all, it's mainly my sex watching the stuff, so what's so bad about what this woman did? Did I miss a meeting?

Your body is just that; it's a lump of very shapely meat in your possession, and if you decide you have a chance at an improvement to your life, or at least getting by, by using that fleshy asset of yours then I don't see any reason for me or anyone else to berate you for it.

It isn't an intrinsic male trait to want to shame women who take pride - or even just pleasure - in their sexualities. It is a cultural trait. It is learned. Which means it can e attributed, neatly or not, to patriarchy.

I firmly believe that the attitudes that lead to men pitifully vilifying women - not to mention exposing them to the public in the first place - will wither away over the coming decades, as people get more used to the technologies of instant mass communication now at our disposal. There is also the matter of spreading affluence; within the next century pretty much everybody will enjoy spending power equivalent to £40k* ( $60k ) or more, and the combo of comfort, better socialisation, and a more enlightened education that includes an understanding of self-determination and non-aggression, will afford every man and woman the social space to be truly themselves, that is to say, to be truly their own selves.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.

~~~

Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~ ~ Capital exploits labor because...
... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
& ~ Labor exploits Capital because...
... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.